Retailer charged more after sale agreed

Hintza

Guess most of the posters are correct. However, sounds like a genuine mistake, by a small company. Obviosly they should have contacted you and explained the problem (but perhaps they didn't have a contact number) before despatch.

Just a rhetorical question.

Are you being reasonable OP or are you trying to take advantage of an honest mistake? (None of us can answer that for you)

neilmcl

Hintza wrote: »

Are you being reasonable OP or are you trying to take advantage of an honest mistake? (None of us can answer that for you)

Honest mistake or not, that's not the way to run a business and frankly irrelevant.

Hintza

neilmcl wrote: »

Honest mistake or not, that's not the way to run a business and frankly irrelevant.

I agree wholeheatedly with you the seller should have done more but I don't think it is irrelevant.

Why do you think it is irrelevant?

Sure the OP can kick the seller in the teeth with this one but only the OP can decide whether they are acting reasonably under the circumstances or not. None of us can know that for sure, we have not been involved in the initial phone call and the follow up.

Stonk

The seller behaved poorly, in the lack of communication. The buyer can certainly get back the difference, either directly if the seller agrees, or through the credit card provider by quoting it as an unauthorised transaction.

The path from here depends really whether the buyer would have happily bought the item at the higher price, and whether they might want to use the same seller again in the future.

Buyer has the legal high ground; the moral side is more flexible.

neilmcl

The seller is in the business of making a profit and if he can't run that business correctly why should the OP be made to feel guilty, particularly as the sellar made no attempt to allow the OP to consider a price increase or the opportunity of cancelling the transaction.

There is no moral issue here and it's not abouting kicking the seller in the teeth, it's about the OP getting back what's rightfully and legally his.

Stonk

I didn't mean that the buyer should feel guilty. Certainly not. The money is rightfully his, no question about it, no guilt involved. I knew when I wrote it that "moral" wasn't quite the right word, but I couldn't think of anything better. "Humanitarian", perhaps? Closer, but still not perfect.

There's a human side to it. If this was a massive faceless corporation filling the pockets of executives and shareholders, then I'd clamour for a refund. If it was one bloke struggling to make ends meet flogging a few boat supplies from a shack, I'd be more inclined to let it pass.

Hintza

neilmcl wrote: »

There is no moral issue here and it's not abouting kicking the seller in the teeth, it's about the OP getting back what's rightfully and legally his.

You are quite correct but all stonk and I are trying to get across is that sometimes it pays to be magnanimous in certain situations.

I don't know if this situation warrants that approach but it is something worth considering. But only the OP knows that.

The seller could be a total !!! for all I know. Just think a bit of Karma every now and again is no bad thing.

cleo1299

Stonk wrote: »

I didn't mean that the buyer should feel guilty. Certainly not. The money is rightfully his, no question about it, no guilt involved. I knew when I wrote it that "moral" wasn't quite the right word, but I couldn't think of anything better. "Humanitarian", perhaps? Closer, but still not perfect.

There's a human side to it. If this was a massive faceless corporation filling the pockets of executives and shareholders, then I'd clamour for a refund. If it was one bloke struggling to make ends meet flogging a few boat supplies from a shack, I'd be more inclined to let it pass.

A possible solution:

Would the OP have ordered the goods if they had been advertised at the increased price?

If the answer is yes, then the OP might opt to accept the goods, and accept the charges, but point out to the seller that he should not have charged the extra money without asking. If the seller is a one-man-operation struggling to make ends meet, he needs to know that what he did was against the law.

If the answer is no, then the OP should cancel the sale, explaining the reason, and tell the seller to refund the money and arrange for the goods to be collected. No need for any aggro unless the seller refuses, in which case threatening legal action would be entirely appropriate and not immoral or unhumanitarian.

KeithP

The OP did state that the seller "is the only one to stock the authorised parts".

So it might be a good idea not to upset the seller too much in case you ever need more parts.

neilmcl

Probably why the seller thinks he can get away with such a thing.